Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: katieq Date: Oct 17, 2012 1:16pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Mannequin (1937)

this case seems to be totally differnt circumstances and makes no mention of (in-notice) It is about 3 different copyright entries and ownership

Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. vs Jerry Vogel Music Co.
C.C.A.N.Y. (3-18-1947) ¤ 161 F.2d 406, certiorari denied 67 S.Ct. 1310, 331 U.S. 820, 91 L.Ed. 1837.
D.C. S.D.N.Y. (5-29-1947) ¤ 73 F.Supp.165, 74 USPQ 264
After the case had been tried in district court, and been appealed in appeals court, it returned to district court. One aspect of this complex case “put in issue (1) the copyright of the unpublished song and lyrics ‘Melancholy’, the song of which was written by Burnett and the lyrics by Watson in 1911 and copyrighted on October 13, 1911; (2) the copyright of that song and new lyrics composed by Norton in 1912, and then transferred to Bennett; and (3) the third version of that song under the name of ‘My Melancholy Baby’, published in 1914, which contained Burnett’s music, Norton’s lyrics, and an additional chorus in march time.

“The trial court found that Burnett and Watson registered their claims for renewal rights in the 1911 version, and Burnett in the 1912 and 1914 versions; that plaintiff also registered claim to renewal rights in the 1914 version; and that Charles Norton, a son of George Norton who wrote the new lyrics in 1912, also applied for renewal rights in the 1914 version. It decided that renewal rights of the Norton lyrics [1912] were lost because of the failure of any person entitled thereto timely to file claim therefor, and that plaintiff owned the renewal rights to both titles and to the music of Burnett.”

The decision here was that “Burnett’s renewal of the 1912 copyright was ineffective” insofar as what was added by the 1912 copyright to the work contained in the 1911 copyright, and that thus “there was no copyright protection in the United States for the Norton lyrics, published in 1912 under the title ‘Melancholy’, and again in 1914 under the title ‘[My] Melancholy Baby’, which were held to be in the public domain”. The music enjoyed continued copyright.

“The Circuit Court of Appeals decided, as to the 1912 version, that Bennett had obtained a valid copyright, that Burnett and Norton were joint owners thereof, that Burnett’s renewal, assigned to the plaintiff, inured to the benefit of both plaintiff and Norton’s son, whose interest passed to defendant by the latter’s assignment....

“It is now determined that the Norton lyrics copyrighted in 1912 are not in the public domain, and that Burnett’s renewal of that copyright, he being a joint owner with Norton, because of the death of Norton prior to renewal, inured to the benefit of Burnett and Norton’s son and their successors in interest.”

With this decided, the court in this third decision addressed whether the third version of the song was a derivative work, as summarized under derivative versions and new matter. Yet another aspect of this case is under term period calculation.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Oct 17, 2012 1:30pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Mannequin (1937)

As a point of law the decision in this case on the timeliness of the renewal on the 1912 version of the song (published with a 1911 copyright notice) is relevant because what the court is saying is that, even though the renewal period would have ended at the anniversary date of the 28th year based on date in notice, the copyright would not lapse until December 31 of that year had passed. What the court was saying was that, in these cases, as long as the renewal was lodged before the copyright lapsed it was timely.

Meaning that the renewal window for a work made 1949 or earlier would be from the beginning of the 27th anniversary (based on the year in notice) until the end of the 28th calendar year (based on the year in notice.) This would seem to suggest that the renewal window for a film registered and published 11th January 1938 (with a 1937 copyright notice) would be 12 January 1964-31 December 1965.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billymays55 Date: Oct 17, 2012 2:11pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Mannequin (1937)

Ok let me get this straight. So what your saying is if a movie was copyrighted on January 1st, 1940 . The renewal window would be Jan 1st 1967 to Jan 1st 1968. BUT....if the in-notice is incorrect and was 1939 then you are automatically given until the end of the calendar year which would be December 31st 1968.

So you get a extra year to renew it if you screw up?

If that's true it sounds like you are better off putting the wrong copyright notice on the movie. Because that's extra time that if you had done it correctly with correct notice you would not of gotten.

So have your rules and guidelines been wrong this whole time?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Oct 17, 2012 4:05pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Mannequin (1937)

No, the renewal period for a movie publised and registered on 1 Jan 1940 would be 2 Jan 1967 until 1 Jan 1968 withthe copyright lapsing after 31 Dec 1968. If it had a 1939 notice the anniversary window would be 2 Jan 1966 - 1 Jan 1967 and the copyright would lapse after 31 Dec 1967 and the copyright office may accept a renewal at any stage up until the copyright lapses (a whole year before it would lapse had the date in notice been 1940).

The issue, I suppose, is that most the specifics of timely renewal is left up to the USCO operation and procedure regulations and not the specific copyright statutes.

Everything, I have read suggests the anniversary window. But there are always exceptions to everything. If you see a movie that is a well known and popular movie that appears, because of date in notice to have been in the public domain for nearly 50 years. Yet it has never been widely exploited as a public domain work. You first have to realise that you are probably not the first person to notice the date descrepancy. You then need to look for a reason to explian why no-one uses this film as a PD work. I found a footnote about a case that offers a reason why PD distributors have left the film alone. Take it or leave it - your choice. Not my concern.

What the decision is saying is that, if the work remains in copyright until the end of the year anyway (ie it doesn't lapse into the public domain the day after the renewal window ends), there is no gain or loss to allow an adjustment for a minor pre-dating error in the date-in-notice. Copyright law does not see pre-dating a copyright as fraudulent deception. It only sees Post-dating of more that one year as willful deception.

Come to think of it. I have only ever found renewal rejections that were attempted after the calendar year ended (D.O.A, the 1950/1 MGM movies.) It is likely that the USCO had a policy not to reject renewals on pre dated works that were lodged within that 27th anniversary to 28th calendar year period.


This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2012-10-17 23:05:34

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Oct 17, 2012 5:17pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Mannequin (1937)

Yet it has never been widely exploited as a public domain work. You first have to realise that you are probably not the first person to notice the date descrepancy. You then need to look for a reason to explian why no-one uses this film as a PD work.

Be careful! billy may accuse you of being an Alpha Video employee!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billymays55 Date: Oct 17, 2012 5:58pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Mannequin (1937)

@ Video-Cellar

Listen Shane....you have no idea what your talking about. You contradicted yourself like 10 times in your little endless dribble.

You said and I quote "No, the renewal period for a movie publised and registered on 1 Jan 1940 would be 2 Jan 1967 until 1 Jan 1968 with the copyright lapsing after 31 Dec 1968."

Why would the renewal window start on the second? January 2nd? It starts on the 1st. On the ANNIVERSARY!!!!! Read my attached page of a scan from the FILM SUPERLIST MOTION PICTURES IN THE U.S. PUBLIC DOMAIN 1940-1949 VOLUME 2.

It clearly states read number 2.

The key part where it says and I quote"The earliest date on which it could have been renewed was Nov. 1, 1976". NOT THE SECOND. Why are you making it a day after? Dude you change the rules everytime post or come up with some new spin on words.

Here is something else you have totally wrong "The issue, I suppose, is that most the specifics of timely renewal is left up to the USCO operation and procedure regulations and not the specific copyright statutes.

The USCO is just a record keeping of all this, why would it be left up to them? There not involved at all and don't enforce anything, they don't police any of this. The courts decide all that and just use the documentation from the USCO as evidence, nothing more.

I love this part where you contradict the whole point of Public Domain and state that renewals don't even matter.

"It doesn't lapse into the public domain the day after the renewal window ends."

SERIOUSLY?!?! It doesn't?? Then when does it? Two days after? Three days after? If things don't lapse into the public domain after the renewal windows than how is there such a thing as public domain and why are we all here on the Archive.org?!?! That one boggled my mind.

--------------------------------------------

"Of course the uploader should have an understanding that the Archive's safe harbor does not extend to them and that even unintential, non-commercial, or unknowing infringement of copyright may leave them liable to civil or criminal penalties. Even after the Archive takes the item down."

Why would you say this? Only if you say it it's ok to upload then? There are brand new movies that are uploaded in Community Video every day that have to be taken down. You'd think the Archive.org would be penalized heavily over a new movie more so than an older one. Again why would you make this statement? So I guess nobody should upload anything since there liable to go to jail.....WOW!!!

This post was modified by billymays55 on 2012-10-18 00:58:03

Attachment: superlist.jpg

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Oct 17, 2012 10:40pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Mannequin (1937)

I am not going to get into a major argument here but there are still lots of misconceptions in your posts.

The anniversary window starts when 23:59 1 Jan 67 flicks over to 00:00 2 Jan 67 (i.e. the beginning of the 28th anniversary year). When 23:59 1 Jan 68 switches over to 00:00 2 Jan 68 the anniversary window has ended (as the 28th anniversary has passed). However, the court says that there is no reason to assume that a non-renewed work has lapsed into the public domain until the copyright lapses when 23:59 31 Dec 68 switches over to 00:00 1 Jan 69 (the event that is now celebrated as "Public Domain Day"). You can't have it both ways. If you start the anniversary window on the 27th anniversary day and end it on the 28th anniversary day you are giving the renewal claimant 1 year and 1 day, which you are otherwise saying they are not entitled to.

Amendments to copyright law meant that even though the renewal window was the 28th anniversary year the copyright did not lapse until the calendar year in which the 28th anniversary fell had ended. What this court decision is saying is that for a movie that has a predated notice the renewal window would be from the beginning of the 28th anniversary year until the end of the calendar year in which the 28th anniversary falls if that fall within the window of the 28th anniversary window of the actual year of registration.

I say the thing about the liability because it is the truth. It is fair enough to say that you can put something up and it may be taken down. The reality is that once something goes up here and has a PD marker attached to it goes on 100s of mirrors and other video sites. That doesn't impress some copyright owners - even the owners of catalog titles. A copyright owner always has the option of pursuing the uploader either before or after a DMCA take down.

The best advise I can give is that you can't rely on any one single source. I use the SuperList as well, but it is not without its failings. If you find legislation, decisions, USCO circulars that contradict it actually take notice of them. Even if it doesn't say what you want it to.

And for the record. It is largely the job of the registrar of copyrights to set the protocols used for registration and renewal of copyright within the framework of the legislation.

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2012-10-18 05:40:42

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Oct 18, 2012 12:25am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Mannequin (1937)

The USCO is just a record keeping of all this, why would it be left up to them? There not involved at all and don't enforce anything, they don't police any of this. The courts decide all that and just use the documentation from the USCO as evidence, nothing more.

FYI

1909 Act Section 53
Rules for registration of claims. — Subject to the approval of the Librarian of Congress, the register of copyrights shall be authorized to make rules and regulations for the registration of claims to copyright as provided by this title.

Attachment: Sec_53_1909.jpg

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Oct 17, 2012 5:19pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Mannequin (1937)

So you get a extra year to renew it if you screw up?

If that's true it sounds like you are better off putting the wrong copyright notice on the movie. Because that's extra time that if you had done it correctly with correct notice you would not of gotten.


Those who don't understand elementary arithmetic cannot be helped.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: katieq Date: Oct 17, 2012 2:26pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Mannequin (1937)

wow! so just make the rules up as you go along? or just throw out the entire timely renewal if you put incorrect date on notice of film? you gain an extra year of copyright protection for putting an incorrect notice?

makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever to be rewarded for not following copyright laws

Katieq